Discuss Detroit » Archives - March 2009 » Are you prepared, pt. II « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 691
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, the party and celebrating that happened right after Bush released the funds to sustain GM & Chrysler for a few more weeks can now come to an end. Apparently, GM & Chrysler are right back at square one and will either need to file bankruptcy or get another massive bailout. Between the bankers, the auto makers, and an enormous stimulus package, we will all be employing half of America just to cut down trees and run the printing presses. My initial thread had this warning:

quote:

Originally posted by Crumbled_pavement:

Initially I thought the D3 would weather the storm. I figured if worse comes to worse Obama would aid the industry. On this day, it does not look like either Chrysler or GM have the ability to hang on to January 20th.

What this simply means is the collapse of one of these institutions is IMMINENT. Once the dominos start tumbling it will touch each and every auto maker in the U.S. Are you prepared for the final nail to be put in the coffin of Michigan?

The end is days away...


from https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/148145/168004.html?12294 57094

Now, I bring you this breaking news story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 90214/bs_nm/us_gm_1

The truth is, Detroit and Michigan are one heartbeat away from extinction.

Discuss . . .
Top of pageBottom of page

Chrissy_snow
Member
Username: Chrissy_snow

Post Number: 456
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 3:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So all of the bailout was just wasted. What exactly did they do with it? Between them and the banks, its nauseating how much money has been thrown away in the last few months, and tax paying citizens are still unemployed and poor.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackenzie68
Member
Username: Mackenzie68

Post Number: 88
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 5:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think GM is using this to break the current UAW and renege on its agreements with retirees. When the union falls at GM, it will fall at Ford and Chrysler.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1677
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 5:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

What exactly did they do with it?



They said they needed it for operations. So with car sales still falling it would make sense that they would need more money to pay the bills, if they couldn't before.

Of course they are right where people who were against the bailout said they would be, begging for more money before March.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 3321
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 5:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote: "I think GM is using this to break the current UAW and renege on its agreements with retirees."

I think GM has made it abundantly clear they are broke and operating in the red, and on taxpayer money. No ploy here, it's simple: Keep the UAW, go out of business, get rid of the UAW and have a chance at survival.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 2227
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is still time for GM, the UAW and GM's bondholders to come to an agreement. Many knowledgeable observers are saying that GM and Chrysler only need to show the elements of their viability plan and some forward progress when they report on Tuesday.

Given the collapse in industry sales since Sept 2008, GM can't shed capacity quick enough under the terms of its contract with the UAW to stop the hemorrhaging, thus the need for the government loans to buy some time and try to negotiate a restructuring without having to declare bankruptcy. The UAW apparently feels that the bondholders still aren't stepping up to the plate with an agreement to write off enough debt and I think they are trying to put some pressure on them. Everyone has a lot more to lose if GM has to declare Chapter 11, including the UAW.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 3322
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 6:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote: "need to show the elements of their viability plan and some forward progress when they report on Tuesday."

Somehow I don't think the January sales numbers are going to do it. What was it, 54% drop or something like that for GM?
Top of pageBottom of page

Brownfieldguy
Member
Username: Brownfieldguy

Post Number: 28
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 6:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It can be best summed up by these two realities

1. UAW - Take the cuts and exist as an institution with jobs. Cut the best deal you can and hope for better days ahead. Tell the rank and file what is true: there is no alternative. Maybe Gettlefinger will be a fall guy politically the next time the union has elections. Not so bad, he retires and goes away and history will show that there was little option. Or you can say hell no, and GM will take it into bankruptcy under some sort of government controlled plan and likely crush the union. What will be left are agreements (if any) that are at best what can be negotiated now.

2. Bond Holders - You get the same pill. Swallow it or get even less later on through a government handled bankruptcy. Possibly even less than you might think as the Democratic Party will certainly try to protect the union organization to the extent that it is possible in the interests of saving votes.

Get on board or get crushed as it is academic and it really does not matter how you got there. When GM goes down it will pull the unions down at Chrysler and Ford. As a matter of fact, Ford will WANT bankruptcy as they will be the only OEM around with a union and that will be no advantage.

I imagine that there is some games and posturing going on from all sides and that only makes sense. This is a hardball all the way situation. But in the end, I DO think the autos can survive a government managed bankruptcy. Its just a question if the union can do it too.

My final comment is a personal one. I have never worked in the auto industry, but family relatives have and are now retired. I work in a professional service industry and have never been part of a union. I am not anti-union, but at best ambivalent to their existence. In the end I will almost certainly come down on the side of the auto companies. I have experienced lost income, jobs and all the rest due to the changes in the economy in Michigan. I feel for those who are suffering as in some regards I have too, but if it comes to being dragged along with some sort of last ditch stand by the unions and bond holders I say this: You will fail and I will shed no tear for you. Instead I will be angry. Angry that you could not see the obvious as I know you can, but angry because all you want is yours and yours alone. You will drag this state down and you will help destroy an industry. And people like me who have paid their taxes and bills, paid for their own education, served in the military, saved for their retirement, donated to their faith and charitable organizations will also be harmed. And people like me will survive, but it will be by moving to another state and starting over.

In large part this whole auto debacle is the result of the credit fiasco. But I am sure tired of hearing how those that feel entitled to a cradle to grave safety net have to hurt the rest of us. Thanks for everything.
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 580
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 9:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

anyone up for a vote the next election to make michigan a right to work state?

it's time.

the unions are the elephant in the room when trying to attract businesses to the state and everyone knows it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Brownfieldguy
Member
Username: Brownfieldguy

Post Number: 31
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 9:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

321brian,

Everyone knows it, but you don't dare say it. I will find the reference, but the MEDC did a study in which it was discussed how national corporations decide where to place factories and other facilities. They found that a significant number of these corporations first assess which states are work to right to work states and which are not. Those that are NOT right to work states immediately come off the list for consideration. That's the cold reality.
Top of pageBottom of page

Glowblue
Member
Username: Glowblue

Post Number: 160
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 10:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

BFG, why aren't you angry at the astoundingly incompetant executives that have run the Big Three into the ground? Cutting $800 off the cost of each car will not save any car company, but a better product portfolio will. The UAW doesn't decide which cars to build.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bigb23
Member
Username: Bigb23

Post Number: 3870
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 10:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

321brian- aren't you the anti union guy on CL R&R ?
Top of pageBottom of page

Brownfieldguy
Member
Username: Brownfieldguy

Post Number: 33
Registered: 02-2009
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 10:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Glowblue,oh yes, the autos have been idiots for decades in their handling of their operations. I can't say what should have been done because frankly I am mot smart enough to run an auto company. I alluded to it when I said it does not matter how we got here in my post. Yep, they have blown it big time and they reward failure. Its by no means a labor only problem.

The point now is the math. Big cuts across the board have to occur. Now. I realize a lot of effort has been made in the last decade, but it has not been enough or not done correctly.

The posturing needs to stop before "they" (and I mean the companies, union, bond holders, dealerships, etc.) implode the entire thing. And if they do implode it they are not just wrecking some corporations they put Michigan into receivership and weaken the national security.

The key is that ALL parties make the cuts now. Its simply about survival and decisions made by management and labor is far more reaching than just the loss of a couple corporations.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 5267
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 10:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't believe everything you read right now, people. There's a lot of propagandizing and speculating going on in the media. Wait until the plans are presented.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mopardan
Member
Username: Mopardan

Post Number: 131
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 10:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.allpar.com/news/ind ex.php/2009/02/chryslers-plans -detailed/

Chrysler’s plans detailed
February 11th, 2009 by DaveAdmin
Writing for the Associated Press, Tom Krisher interviewed Frank Klegon regarding Chrysler’s twin business plans, one including Fiat and the other standing alone. He wrote that two teams were independently working on the plans. In either case, Chrysler plans to provide equity to bondholders to get concessions from them, and is talking with the UAW on labor costs. The company is currently trying to get dealers to order 78,000 vehicles in February, and is still short by 10,000 vehicles with a deadline looming.

Klegon noted that while Chrysler is interested in Fiat’s small cars and powertrains, Fiat itself is interested in Chrysler’s trucks, emissions controls, and the Phoenix V6.

One interesting part of the article concerned the deal with Nissan to build a car (usually thought to be the Hornet) on the Cube architecture. This is still ongoing, according to Klegon, despite the obvious duplication with the Fiats, but he said there was no signed contract with Nissan. Even with the Fiat deal, the Hornet could continue.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mopardan
Member
Username: Mopardan

Post Number: 132
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 10:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.allpar.com/news/

Chrysler gets 78,000 orders
February 12th, 2009 by DaveAdmin
Dealers across the United States ordered at least 78,000 vehicles in February despite bulging showrooms, after an effort by Jim Press and others to make the sales. The extra income, according to Press, will prevent unwanted cutbacks and encourage the Federal government to provide additional aid.


Klegon: No more job cuts
February 12th, 2009 by Bill Cawthon
Frank Klegon, Chrysler’s executive vice president for product development, says the company is not including additional workforce reductions in the viability plan to be submitted to the federal government next Tuesday.

Klegon’s comments came after the announcement of General Motors’ plan to trim an additional 10,000 people from its payroll. Klegon noted Chrysler had a major reduction in force last November when about 25 percent of its salaried employees were let go.

Chrysler has reduced its employee count by 38 percent since the end of 2006 and some industry experts say the automaker may be at the point where it’s impossible to trim any farther without jeopardizing the company’s ability to function. Some analysts are already saying Chrysler does not have enough in-house staff for development of new vehicles which is why it needs the alliance with Fiat SpA.

Chrysler must present a detailed plan for long-term sustainabilty in order to obtain an additional $3 billion in government-guaranteed loans.
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 581
Registered: 02-2006
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 11:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CL R&R ?

The fact is that the people working today union and management were sold out by mismanagement and greedy unions from generations past.

They made sure they got their pension and got out.

The companies and unions were so shortsighted in the past it is unbelievable. I don't know how somebody didn't think that things could go on like they were forever.

Actually, I am sure people did speak up but were quickly shut up and told not to worry someone else down the line will fix it in the future.

Glowblue,

You argument that the UAW doesn't decide what cars to build is the most tired around. True enough but the UAW did/does protect workers whos behavior (see: Rivethead)would not be tolerated in a non-union shop for very long.

Also, management didn't put out poorly constructed cars. UAW workers did.

The combination of uninspired designs, arrogance about the market,and poor quality dug the big 3 into a hole they have not been able to dig themselves out of.
Top of pageBottom of page

Vetalalumni
Member
Username: Vetalalumni

Post Number: 1148
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 11:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No Car Czar after all. Ron Bloom however, is a skilled negotiator.

http://www.usw.org/media_cente r/news_articles?id=0171
Top of pageBottom of page

Reddog289
Member
Username: Reddog289

Post Number: 925
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 12:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I myself wish threads like this were non existant, not due to free speech but because the big 3 would be doing good. I myself want a new vehicle. Of the 4 vehicles at my house the average age of them is 16 yrs old.Last month I talked about it with the "wife". She told me "No new car till you get a contract". I say OK. Well last week I get this letter from the mortgage company. My mortgage will go up because of a escrow deal. Even if I do get a new contract any money that would go to a new car will go toward the house. A house in an area where there are many empty houses. I do have an old car "1965 Comet" yet that will stay parked away in an Uncles garage while I try to keep the "newer" cars running.Now is the time to buy as many people tell me. Yep it is, Deals on houses,cars, and everything under the sun. Yet you can't buy it if you have no money.
Top of pageBottom of page

W_chicago
Member
Username: W_chicago

Post Number: 100
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 4:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The argument "there is no alternative" to the worker's taking massive cuts is incredibly shallow and short-sighted. Perhaps the UAW will make major concessions, for it already has made massive ones in the past few years including enacting a two-tier wage system. But is there really no alternative to workers taking even bigger hits? Even with these cuts in workforce, wages, and benefits the company will barely be able to meet the federal demands. But is it cutting labor costs because of the money alone? Or is there more to it? The company will cut labor costs before making its operation more efficient or cutting unnecessary expenditure or executive compensation. With republicans calling to "break the back of the union," and Democrats essentially saying the same thing through their actions, it seems that reducing worker's bargaining power is essential.

So it makes sense that "there is no alternative" so long as you are within the confines of that mythology. "TINA" as it was popularly abbreviated, has been long associated with Margaret Thatcher when describing that "there is no alternative" to capitalism. We as a society must break through the dominate narratives that prevent us from seeing our history clearly and prevent us from shaping our own future.

What does life after capitalism look like?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 2229
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 7:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Perhaps the UAW will make major concessions, for it already has made massive ones in the past few years including enacting a two-tier wage system.



All the evidence suggests that those concessions came too late. Changes to the salaried ranks began in the mid 1990s with the loss of retiree health care and defined benefit pensions for new hires. At the same time, GM began requiring salaried employees to take one week of their vacation in July during the model changeover period when the plants were down. They tried to negotiate the same requirement with the UAW but could not get it because even though most of their non-skilled workers were off for shut down, they were getting sub pay and the union would not give it up.

quote:

What does life after capitalism look like?


In the USA, much the same as it always has been - don't be such a drama queen. Break through those "dominant narratives" that say an individual is powerless to shape any part of their own future.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danny
Member
Username: Danny

Post Number: 4477
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 8:14 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

YEAH YEAH!

Blame the unions for their socialist Neo-Boshevism ideologies.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mopardan
Member
Username: Mopardan

Post Number: 133
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 9:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I found this editorial from the Allpar Blog to be pertinent.
http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/ 2009/02/09/executive-comp-come s-up-again/

Executive comp comes up again
February 9th, 2009 by DaveAdmin
President Obama has made it clear that he finds the compensation taken by the leaders of failed banks to be shameful if not criminal. Many apologists have already risen to say, “Well, you need to pay more to get more.”

I beg to differ, and not just because I don’t think the CEO of, say, Citibank was the best around; nor do I think that Bob Eaton, who was paid more than Bob Lutz (when both were running Chrysler), was a better catch. Or that Toyota’s Wanatabe was grossly inferior to Wagoner, Eaton, and their ilk.

I think we all know at some level that you don’t always get what you pay for. The Sony Trinitron was far superior to other televisions in its price range when it came out. The original Intrepid pounced on any competitor in just about every way. Anyone who has purchased a complex item like a computer has probably found out at one point or another that you do not always get what you pay for. Imagine how illogical that premise is when applied to people, even if you eliminate the interlocking boards of directors and the effect of charisma, charm, and “who you know.”

My local school district pays its educators and administrators far more than any other district in the county. A lot more. We also pay more per student than any district in the county - around $3,000 per student above the average or median (either one). Yet, our students’ achievement, by any measure you care to apply, is near the bottom of the county. Math scores, language scores, science scores, are all pathetic, and we have problems now with gang activity and unregulated social behavior. By the logic that says we must pay CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars a year whether the company makes money or not, we should have the best district in the county. Instead, we’re vying for “worst” with towns that have much less favorable demographics.

Many years ago, when I still read Business Week, before I got tired of their glorification of “tough love” leaders (who had an awkward tendency to lead their companies into the sewer), I was impressed by their feature story on executive compensation. They run this every year, and every year that I’ve seen it, the message is the same: the highest paid leaders are no better than the lowest paid leaders. At one point, the highest-paid executive in the country ran a company that had never made a profit, and wasn’t likely to - and I’m not talking about Jeff Bezos, whose strategy turned out to work after all. I’m talking about someone you’ve never heard of, running a company you’ve never heard of. Who happened to be the highest paid exec in the nation.

Likewise, you can look at Lee Iacocca at Chrysler. He did his best work at $1 per year. Once he went back to full salary, he made plenty of mistakes. Strange how that works. ‘Course he might have been like Walter P.: a change agent who gets bored if he stays in the same place to long.

And then there’s the leadership of My Rich Uncle (MRU or UNCL). Check out their stock price, assets, revenue, and executive comp at some point when you haven’t just eaten.

Perhaps it’s time for the average American to stop getting furious at those devilish union men who want to get a decent salary and health benefits - how dare they demand more than minimum wage! - and to start directing their anger at individuals who make as much as thousands of ordinary people combined. Many of them could be replaced far more easily than, say, that guy who tuned the various Chrysler and Dodge suspensions back in the 1990s, or the guy who operated that particular test cell, or the mechanic who every other tool jockey went to for the tough jobs, or to cut an hour from the 90 minute job without losing anything.

I’m not saying there haven’t been problems with the union guys, or any blue collar workers. Obviously there are teachers who should have been fired years ago, who are gliding by with tenure. (Though that really says more about the gutless managers who can’t bear to fire them. I know strong managers who fired union people left and right, and each time the union rep said, “I have to file this grievance, but that’s my job. I know why you had to fire him/her and you did the right thing.”) There have been lazy, drug-addicted, alcoholic, or otherwise fire-ready UAW guys. I doubt they were ever more than a minority, but if they stay on the job, it says more about management than labor at this point.

The question is, do we focus our attention on a few lazy slobs working now or in the past; do we focus it on large groups of people who would like to be in the middle class; or do we focus it on a few irresponsible people who are making more than a thousand people at the entry level?

Because, frankly, the economy would be in a lot better shape if, instead of trying to send all of our jobs to minimum wage with no health benefits, we tried to get everyone a decent job that pays well. The economy does best when everyone has disposable income, not just a chosen few.

Of course we can also do as we’re told by our media leaders, and bow down to free trade as an end in itself. Forget protectionism, we’re told. Forget fair trade; it’s just another word for protectionism. Free trade will save us. Eventually we will abolish the minimum wage, and we’ll get our factories back by working for a dollar an hour. And the local store, owned by the company we work for, will gladly assign credit to us, if we get our children to sign the promissory notes. Then they can live their lives as their parents did, going ever-deeper into a debt that can never be worked off.

Is that really the American way? Is our Hobson’s choice really “decent salaries but not jobs, or sub-minimum-wage”? Or is there another way? And if there is another way, how can we get there without violating the economic freedoms we still hold dear?
Top of pageBottom of page

Living_in_the_d
Member
Username: Living_in_the_d

Post Number: 332
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 10:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, Wow.... Well put M.D., And well said. Your sentiments are echoed by all the good hearted people who feel the same way, And BTW, this is been happening in right to work states for a long,long time, And only now when it hits Union town, Does it become clear.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1680
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 10:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Many of them could be replaced far more easily than, say, that guy who tuned the various Chrysler and Dodge suspensions back in the 1990s, or the guy who operated that particular test cell, or the mechanic who every other tool jockey went to for the tough jobs, or to cut an hour from the 90 minute job without losing anything.



Everyone is easily replaced. Outside of the few who happen to be the experts in their fields, no one is that special.
Top of pageBottom of page

Themax
Member
Username: Themax

Post Number: 828
Registered: 09-2005
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 11:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"You need to pay more to get more?" Since when? Most working people I know are doing more work for the same wages. In fact, the median income in the U.S. has barely budged since 1975. Here's part of an article on Reaganomics:

A Final Report Card on the Reagan Years?
By Sam Pizzigati

Between 1979 and 2005, the bottom half of the top 1 percent saw their average
incomes only double, after inflation. These incomes increased 105 percent. The
next highest four-tenths of the top 1 percent somewhat raised the income bar.
Their average incomes, after inflation, rose 161 percent.
That brings us to the top 0.1 percent of Americans. Their incomes, from 1979 to
2005, rose a staggering 294 percent after taking inflation into account. Not bad
at all. But the top 0.01 percent did even better. The 11,000 households in this
rarified air took home an average $35.5 million in 2005, a 384 percent increase
over average top 0.01 percent incomes in 1979.
Need some perspective here? Let's compare Americans at the top to Americans in
the middle. Between 1979 and 2005, the average income of America’s statistical
middle class — the 20 percent of Americans in the exact middle of the U.S.
income distribution — rose, according to the CBO figures, a mere 15 percent.
That's less than 1 percent a year.

RE: the stimulus
There's a billion for hybrid cars, but what company will be around to take advantage of the Buy American provision?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mopardan
Member
Username: Mopardan

Post Number: 136
Registered: 11-2008
Posted on Monday, February 16, 2009 - 1:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote:
Everyone is easily replaced. Outside of the few who happen to be the experts in their fields, no one is that special.
============================== ==================
Generally I agree. On the other hand, much of it has to do with your own situation. I work as a security auditor/analyst for a law enforcement agency. To the public, it really doesn't mean squat. To a cop pulling someone over on a desolate road, his life may depend on whether or not our system is running properly.
Perception has to do with it as well. Do I think I'm worth the money I make? To a certain point because of my degree, background, knowledge, experience & skills. To someone not directly affected by my work I'm an overpaid government worker. To a cop, I'm probably worth every dime & then some as long as the system is functioning. If the system is down or malfunctioning, his opinion changes drastically.
To be realistic, we are all replaceable by someone or something. Even when you're at the top of your game, a monkey wrench is thrown into the machinery & you're out on the street with a pink slip. Life is very fragile.
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 693
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 7:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Even with this news:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/w ashington/2009-02-17-obama-den ver-stimulus_N.htm

Comes this news:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/ autos/2009-02-17-chrysler-bail out-request-job-cuts_N.htm

USA Today:
quote:

General Motors' (GM) restructuring proposal says the company may need up to $30 billion in government loans as it implements a survival plan that includes cutting 47,000 jobs and closing five more U.S. factories.



If the Feds gave GM $100B and GM reduced its workforce by 90% they still couldn't turn a profit.

If you didn't know before, now you know: Michigan is D O O M E D ! ! !
Top of pageBottom of page

Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement

Post Number: 694
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 7:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Which will hurt Michigan more? The loss of a profitable industry or the loss of employees. I think in the next 20 years one of the D3 will turn a profit, but they'll probably be a small business at that point. Maybe 1K employees? Not many taxpayers or reason for people to relocate to Michigan from other states.

:-(
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 5279
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I was late clicking over to the press conference, but the 47,000 job cuts are for worldwide employment, not US, and I believe it includes cuts that have already been announced. Also, the number of $30 billion in financing includes the funding they've already received plus what would be needed for their WORST CASE scenario. Wagoner said the worldwide market projection is for around 57 million units down from around 70 million in recent previous years.

The press are in such a hurry to grab headlines they are putting stuff out there without full explanation. They're fear mongering again (no surprise).

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.